“Dark and difficult times lie ahead. Soon we must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy.”—Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.
In the world of flashy media we live in, you’d think getting a kid to read a book would be hard. And, if any book would be hard, you’d think it impossible to get a 10-year-old to voluntarily read an 800-page book.
But J.K. Rowling has made the seemingly impossible downright attractive to not just children, but adults as well.
Okay, I admit it. I’ve read all the Harry Potter books, in order, cover to cover.
But don’t mistake me for a fanatic. I can’t recite chapter and verse of the books. I can’t quote Dumbledore off the top of my head, and I definitely don’t remember what spell does what.
But I do love them.
It’s been such a long time since a set of books came out that became instant classics—and J.K. Rowling’s work definitely qualifies.
So what’s the real attraction?
Magic is always exciting, especially for the younger, more imaginative set. But I don’t really think that’s it. There’s plenty of books that have magical themes.
And the story is good, really good and extremely well-written. But I don’t think that either is entirely responsible for why kids (and adults) can’t get enough of Harry Potter.
So why would millions upon millions of people flock to bookstores and stay up ‘til midnight to get the next installment? Why has this series of books been translated into more languages than I can count?
(By the way, I didn’t stand in line for my copy of the seventh and last book in the series. but I did buy it the next day, and read it in its entirety over a very delightful long afternoon, sitting in front of a fan, eating blueberries, chocolate and ice cream.)
Ironically, it may be because the books, though fantasy in nature, contain many truths, and they don’t make any attempt to sugar-coat bad things.
Obviously, I don’t know that this is consciously in the mind of every child that reads them, but even to my adult mind, the lack of sugar-coating is very refreshing.
Though fantasy, the characters are real. They have flaws, they make mistakes. And they deal with their mistakes the best they can. Just like most good people do in real life.
Also, there is empowerment in the idea that though a situation may be daunting, with friends, skill and perhaps a little luck, even the most dire of circumstances can be dealt with.
These are themes one is quite unlikely to find on television or in the average movie. But it would seem that even though there is a young generation that has never known the world any differently, they still crave more than big media usuually offers.
Today’s world can be scary, especially to the younger set, some of whom cannot remember a time when this country was not at war, or when “terrorist” was not in every American’s everyday vocabulary.
But even if this was not the case, the world can be a scary place. Having some heroes that actually do good and are skilled in an art they had to work for are attractive role models, something this world can always use a few more of. People that won’t bow down in the face of tremendous adversity. People that seek truth, and eschew what is easy for what is right.
And, in Harry Potter, they have been born, and will probably continue to delight and educate children, as well as some adults for decades to come.
Which is a good thing, because every generation has its obstacles and burdens. And, no matter where or when you live, whether here or in Harry Potter’s world of fantasy, there are always dark and difficult times, and we always do choose between what is right and what is easy.
The Harry Potter novels not only remind you of this truth, along with many others that bear remembering, but provide one with a good, long, nearly 800-page opportunity to enjoy a wonderful, adventure—whether you have the blueberries, ice cream and chocolate on hand or not.
See you soon.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Pseudo-‘green’ brings in the other kind of green—money
It seems like you can’t very far these days without hearing something about the environment. That there are real environmental problems being caused human activities, that we are affecting our habitat in a negative way, is not in dispute by anyone who is bothering to look at the facts being presented by scientists around the world.
So, it’s no wonder that phrases like “eco-friendly,” “greener (fill in the blank),” and “sustainable development” are being used to market all sorts of things. And, indeed, using these terms does help the bottom line, or we wouldn’t see them being touted so often.
That phrases like “sustainable development” are successful marketing tools shows that the public is at least somewhat aware of the damage being caused by runaway consumerism and land development, and some want to help lessen the impact (or at least feel less guilty about their own personal contribution to it).
But the more I hear about “greener” things, the more cynical I find myself becoming.
It’s not that I don’t believe in environmental causes—I most fervently do. But I think these phrases are being used to divert attention from the real environmental issue, which is that at its core, our way of life, as it is, is not in any way, shape or form sustainable, and any real sustainable society we create is going to require some major changes in the way we think in this country.
At first that sounds like a very scary prospect, one that brings to mind dreary pictures left over from the ’60s and ’70s of depressing, under-heated and dim dwellings reminiscent of Soviet Russia. (Indeed, this impression may have been purposely left to discourage any real conservation efforts on the part of the public. It may sound paranoid, but it’s been proven that some so-called grass roots efforts have in fact been funded by large corporations, such as petroleum industries, to promote or oppose efforts on those companies’ behalf.)
Other “conservation” efforts may have left the public with the impression that public transportation or bicycles are the only real alternatives to owning a car of one’s own, and both of those options are perceived as being not only inconvenient, but for the lower classes (busses) or health nuts (bicycles).
We are told over and over that new, cleaner technology is a few years down the road. We’ve been told this for decades, but it never seems to materialize. In 1979, then-President Jimmy Carter climbed to the White House roof to show off the building’s new solar energy system. Granted, it did not power everything, but it was a start, not to mention a major show of support. The system supplied hot water to the entire White House until the end of Carter’s term. Upon taking office, Ronald Reagan had it dismantled and taken down. Guess which president had major stock and friends in the petroleum biz.
The technology doesn’t materialize because the effort is not being put into it. I can’t believe we can figure out how to find whole new ways of getting more oil out of shale in just a couple of years, but no one has managed to make and market an efficient solar collector in three decades. The answer lies in motivation—here, shortsighted profits. I have every confidence that if half the effort were put into marketing and developing reliable clean technologies, they would be very profitable—just not necessarily for the oil guys.
But new technology is just a small part of the picture. Our overall consumption and business models that are dependent upon ever-increasing profits, both nearly inextricably linked, have a lot more to do with our situation—and the solution.
First, let’s start with the idea that creating a truly sustainable society will require major sacrifices on everyone’s part, and that our standard of living will be lowered. I guess it depends on what you mean by sacrifices. If you will miss the countless tons of packaging that is created specifically to become trash, well, I suppose that will be a sacrifice. But if you realized how much of the price you pay for any given item is tied up in unnecessary packaging, you might feel differently. And, if you or your child were healthier, and say, didn’t have asthma as a result of all the extra pollution that wasn’t created while not creating all that extra trash (which not only takes up precious space in a landfill, but used natural resources such as petroleum and trees to create, and used other natural resources to transport from its origination point to assembly point to store to your trash bin, where it finally is picked up by and takes up space on a garbage truck that also uses petroleum) you might just decide you’re entirely better off without all those pieces of glitz designed to convince you to buy something whose lifespan was all of 35 seconds, but whose utterly useless remains may be with us for the next 20,000 years.
In many cases, the things we think of as more permanent aren’t much better. Durable goods and household appliances don’t have the longevity they once had, by design no less. The calculation of this started decades ago and was chronicled by Vance Packard, of “The Hidden Persuaders” fame in his aptly titled book, “The Wastemakers.”
You see, the things we so often take for granted in today’s marketplace were actually carefully calculated and engineered decades ago, after World War II. The problem is, what was good for the short term then is definitely not good for the long term now, but we’re told over and over, “This is the way it is,” with the implication that we’re stuck, that there is no other way.
George W. Bush has proclaimed this country is addicted to oil, but it was force-fed to us, along with the concept of never-ending increase in profits and a throwaway society—and now our infrastructure is geared to it. We, the public, are not addicted to oil, but its purveyors are definitely addicted to its ever-increasing profits as it grows scarcer. We, the public, however, are definitely addicted to luxury and the “quick fix.”
And, as long as everyone “needs” a new cell phone and computer every year, with no way of recycling the old ones, as long as everyone “needs” the latest, greatest bit of plastic crap or gizmo or toy that will undoubtedly be outdated by next week, necessitating a completely new one, as long as everyone “needs” a new kitchen every few years instead of every few decades, this will not end.
Overall, the idea of changing our ways for real does not have a very good chance of succeeding if we don’t embrace some of the ideas of our forefathers, who got along very well with what they had. Well enough, in fact, that we call that undefined era as “the good old days.”
Which isn’t to say that we should go backwards, or that everything in the past was rosy. Certainly, it wasn’t. But there are some “old fashioned” ideas that, perhaps, should have never been discarded, and could even be expanded on.
Things that seem small, like the concept of returnable soda bottles, could really make an impact if implemented. Considering that it’s a pretty safe bet that on average there is at least one bottled or canned soft drink consumed per person in the City of Easton per day, in just one local urban municipality, 27,000 containers could be kept out of a landfill daily, not to mention the amount of energy that would be saved by not having to remanufacture or physically recycle those containers, but only wash and sanitize them for reuse.
“Yes, but what about all the different brands?” you ask.
Well, that’s where the problem of infrastructure comes in. But it’s not too difficult to solve, if we just had the motivation. Bottles could always be returned and sorted at their point of origin—in other words, where one bought the product in the first place. Certainly grocery stores would have no problem coming up with gimmicks to go with this and to entice customers to participate. And, then there’s always the idea of generic bottles, with paper or printed labels.
Another concept that shouldn’t have been abandoned is the well-stocked corner grocery store. While the big box grocery stores we have become accustomed to may seem like they offer more, very few really offer a better selection than one could get close to home in the past and actually offer the consumer less convenience, not more.
The big box store you have to drive to is placed for the corporation’s convenience, not yours. While it might seem efficient to have a tractor-trailer have only one central destination and unload, it is only efficient for the supermarket, not the consumer. The consumers all drive individually to the store, racking up the miles at their own expense, and much more gasoline is used than if the one tractor trailer delivered the goods to, say, five smaller locations that were actually located closer to where the consumers lived.
That’s not to say it’s a good idea to have a Wal-Mart every 10 feet (though things seem headed that way anyway), but for something basic that everyone needs, such as food, it seems only logical to make it more immediately accessible. Assuming that one big box grocery serves 10,000 people who drive an average 5 miles to get there, wouldn’t it make more sense to have five grocery stores serving about 2,000 people apiece that only drive a maximum of 2 or 3 miles? The same 10,000 people would collectively drive 20,000 to 30,000 less miles per grocery trip, and collectively save 800 to 1,200 gallons of gas (using an average of 25 miles per gallon) per trip, each gallon of which would have contributed 19 more pounds of greenhouse-gas building carbon dioxide into the air.
These are just a couple of small examples of how we, as a society, are not really putting our money where our mouths are when it comes to the environment. “Greener” may sound good, but if it doesn’t address the issues of waste that got us here in the first place, it’s just another way of fooling you into thinking it’s all okay. It’s not really green at all.
So, it’s no wonder that phrases like “eco-friendly,” “greener (fill in the blank),” and “sustainable development” are being used to market all sorts of things. And, indeed, using these terms does help the bottom line, or we wouldn’t see them being touted so often.
That phrases like “sustainable development” are successful marketing tools shows that the public is at least somewhat aware of the damage being caused by runaway consumerism and land development, and some want to help lessen the impact (or at least feel less guilty about their own personal contribution to it).
But the more I hear about “greener” things, the more cynical I find myself becoming.
It’s not that I don’t believe in environmental causes—I most fervently do. But I think these phrases are being used to divert attention from the real environmental issue, which is that at its core, our way of life, as it is, is not in any way, shape or form sustainable, and any real sustainable society we create is going to require some major changes in the way we think in this country.
At first that sounds like a very scary prospect, one that brings to mind dreary pictures left over from the ’60s and ’70s of depressing, under-heated and dim dwellings reminiscent of Soviet Russia. (Indeed, this impression may have been purposely left to discourage any real conservation efforts on the part of the public. It may sound paranoid, but it’s been proven that some so-called grass roots efforts have in fact been funded by large corporations, such as petroleum industries, to promote or oppose efforts on those companies’ behalf.)
Other “conservation” efforts may have left the public with the impression that public transportation or bicycles are the only real alternatives to owning a car of one’s own, and both of those options are perceived as being not only inconvenient, but for the lower classes (busses) or health nuts (bicycles).
We are told over and over that new, cleaner technology is a few years down the road. We’ve been told this for decades, but it never seems to materialize. In 1979, then-President Jimmy Carter climbed to the White House roof to show off the building’s new solar energy system. Granted, it did not power everything, but it was a start, not to mention a major show of support. The system supplied hot water to the entire White House until the end of Carter’s term. Upon taking office, Ronald Reagan had it dismantled and taken down. Guess which president had major stock and friends in the petroleum biz.
The technology doesn’t materialize because the effort is not being put into it. I can’t believe we can figure out how to find whole new ways of getting more oil out of shale in just a couple of years, but no one has managed to make and market an efficient solar collector in three decades. The answer lies in motivation—here, shortsighted profits. I have every confidence that if half the effort were put into marketing and developing reliable clean technologies, they would be very profitable—just not necessarily for the oil guys.
But new technology is just a small part of the picture. Our overall consumption and business models that are dependent upon ever-increasing profits, both nearly inextricably linked, have a lot more to do with our situation—and the solution.
First, let’s start with the idea that creating a truly sustainable society will require major sacrifices on everyone’s part, and that our standard of living will be lowered. I guess it depends on what you mean by sacrifices. If you will miss the countless tons of packaging that is created specifically to become trash, well, I suppose that will be a sacrifice. But if you realized how much of the price you pay for any given item is tied up in unnecessary packaging, you might feel differently. And, if you or your child were healthier, and say, didn’t have asthma as a result of all the extra pollution that wasn’t created while not creating all that extra trash (which not only takes up precious space in a landfill, but used natural resources such as petroleum and trees to create, and used other natural resources to transport from its origination point to assembly point to store to your trash bin, where it finally is picked up by and takes up space on a garbage truck that also uses petroleum) you might just decide you’re entirely better off without all those pieces of glitz designed to convince you to buy something whose lifespan was all of 35 seconds, but whose utterly useless remains may be with us for the next 20,000 years.
In many cases, the things we think of as more permanent aren’t much better. Durable goods and household appliances don’t have the longevity they once had, by design no less. The calculation of this started decades ago and was chronicled by Vance Packard, of “The Hidden Persuaders” fame in his aptly titled book, “The Wastemakers.”
You see, the things we so often take for granted in today’s marketplace were actually carefully calculated and engineered decades ago, after World War II. The problem is, what was good for the short term then is definitely not good for the long term now, but we’re told over and over, “This is the way it is,” with the implication that we’re stuck, that there is no other way.
George W. Bush has proclaimed this country is addicted to oil, but it was force-fed to us, along with the concept of never-ending increase in profits and a throwaway society—and now our infrastructure is geared to it. We, the public, are not addicted to oil, but its purveyors are definitely addicted to its ever-increasing profits as it grows scarcer. We, the public, however, are definitely addicted to luxury and the “quick fix.”
And, as long as everyone “needs” a new cell phone and computer every year, with no way of recycling the old ones, as long as everyone “needs” the latest, greatest bit of plastic crap or gizmo or toy that will undoubtedly be outdated by next week, necessitating a completely new one, as long as everyone “needs” a new kitchen every few years instead of every few decades, this will not end.
Overall, the idea of changing our ways for real does not have a very good chance of succeeding if we don’t embrace some of the ideas of our forefathers, who got along very well with what they had. Well enough, in fact, that we call that undefined era as “the good old days.”
Which isn’t to say that we should go backwards, or that everything in the past was rosy. Certainly, it wasn’t. But there are some “old fashioned” ideas that, perhaps, should have never been discarded, and could even be expanded on.
Things that seem small, like the concept of returnable soda bottles, could really make an impact if implemented. Considering that it’s a pretty safe bet that on average there is at least one bottled or canned soft drink consumed per person in the City of Easton per day, in just one local urban municipality, 27,000 containers could be kept out of a landfill daily, not to mention the amount of energy that would be saved by not having to remanufacture or physically recycle those containers, but only wash and sanitize them for reuse.
“Yes, but what about all the different brands?” you ask.
Well, that’s where the problem of infrastructure comes in. But it’s not too difficult to solve, if we just had the motivation. Bottles could always be returned and sorted at their point of origin—in other words, where one bought the product in the first place. Certainly grocery stores would have no problem coming up with gimmicks to go with this and to entice customers to participate. And, then there’s always the idea of generic bottles, with paper or printed labels.
Another concept that shouldn’t have been abandoned is the well-stocked corner grocery store. While the big box grocery stores we have become accustomed to may seem like they offer more, very few really offer a better selection than one could get close to home in the past and actually offer the consumer less convenience, not more.
The big box store you have to drive to is placed for the corporation’s convenience, not yours. While it might seem efficient to have a tractor-trailer have only one central destination and unload, it is only efficient for the supermarket, not the consumer. The consumers all drive individually to the store, racking up the miles at their own expense, and much more gasoline is used than if the one tractor trailer delivered the goods to, say, five smaller locations that were actually located closer to where the consumers lived.
That’s not to say it’s a good idea to have a Wal-Mart every 10 feet (though things seem headed that way anyway), but for something basic that everyone needs, such as food, it seems only logical to make it more immediately accessible. Assuming that one big box grocery serves 10,000 people who drive an average 5 miles to get there, wouldn’t it make more sense to have five grocery stores serving about 2,000 people apiece that only drive a maximum of 2 or 3 miles? The same 10,000 people would collectively drive 20,000 to 30,000 less miles per grocery trip, and collectively save 800 to 1,200 gallons of gas (using an average of 25 miles per gallon) per trip, each gallon of which would have contributed 19 more pounds of greenhouse-gas building carbon dioxide into the air.
These are just a couple of small examples of how we, as a society, are not really putting our money where our mouths are when it comes to the environment. “Greener” may sound good, but if it doesn’t address the issues of waste that got us here in the first place, it’s just another way of fooling you into thinking it’s all okay. It’s not really green at all.
Reporter’s rash deed deserves all the applause it’s getting and more
A few weeks ago, a very curious thing happened on MSNBC. One morning early this month, MSNBC reporter Mika Brzezinski refused, on air, to cover Paris Hilton’s release from jail. Competing for airtime with the ridiculous heiress’ ongoing saga was the bill that proposed a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq having been introduced on the House and Senate floor.
So incensed by the story and her producer’s (and teleprompter’s) refusal to budge on running Hilton as the lead story was Brzezinski, that she first attempted to set the script on fire, then tore and shredded the papers—all on live television.
Her explanation for the deed? “I just don’t believe in covering that story, especially not as the lead story in a newscast when you have a day like today.”
Brzezinski deserves a big round of applause, and she’s been getting it.
That the news is not the news, particularly on the national level, is, well, unfortunately, not news anymore. But it’s really good to see that someone finally said something, even if it’s because they snapped. It proves some folks in national media actually still care.
This story didn’t get a lot of mainstream coverage, and the explanation on the show “Morning Joe,” was fairly short—the incident was only brought back up after it was clear, from the thousands upon thousands of emails cheering Brzezinski’s act.
The incident also quickly made its way to YouTube, where it was popular and well-viewed, generating even more support for Brzezinski.
That the news on TV is not news, but “infotainment,” as I mentioned earlier, is nothing all that new. Television newscaster Edward Murrow prophetically warned of this problem more than 50 years ago, and we’ve been moving at an ever-increasing pace towards nearly no “hard” news. In fact, the problem is so bad I’m personally often reminded of scenes from Ray Bradbury’s “Farhenheit 451” when I watch network news.
Constantly, when the powers that be deign to answer the question “Why is there no more ‘serious’ news?” we get the answer, “Because that doesn’t sell. ‘Infotainment’ does. It is what the public wants.”
This is complete and utter bunk. If nothing else, the droves of emails and intelligently written commentaries on the incident one will find on the Web belie this idea. And, I can personally vouch, as I cover community news, my readers tell me they want more, not less, ‘hard’ news complete with all the details we can muster.
The fact is, while the public is sometimes guilty of working from the lowest common denominator, big money media is far more guilty of force feeding this excrement to the public. Many, if not most, people turn on television news, hoping to glean some nuggets of real information of what is going on in the world. They dodge the bullets of “non-news” such as the latest highway car crash and stories of questionable merit, such as the Paris Hilton soap opera, looking in vain for some real news of what is going on in Washington D.C., Iraq, Afghanistan, or even just the world and nation in general.
From what I hear regularly, they are usually disappointed.
Given that the owners of big media also have many other corporate interests (such as petroleum, international industry, and even just mundane things such as big box retail) who might be affected by news coverage either in the form of incoming advertising dollars, or by the possibility that a story might just tarnish the image of a owner’s other interest and negatively impact their overall bottom line, the corporate masters of big media really have no interest in informing the public. It is much more convenient, and perhaps monetarily profitable, to distract, shock and entertain the public with drivel than to tell the actual news of the day on what is supposedly news programming.
For myself, having “killed my television” some years ago (I do literally own two, but I don’t subscribe to a cable or satellite service.), most of my national and international news comes from radio or the Internet. And, I find, if I really want to know what’s going on, both here and abroad, tuning into news reported from other countries, such as the BBC, is a lot more efficient than trying to decipher what’s really happening from a couple of sound bites squished in between “non-news,” “infotainment,” and commercials.
A few friends have mentioned to me that they do the same thing—if they really want to know what’s going on, they turn to independent or overseas sources.
It struck me the other day how sad this situation is. Not so many years ago, the U.S. was a recognized source around the world for free information. During the Cold War, there were U.S. efforts to broadcast uncensored news to Communist block states and other totalitarian areas around the world. What happened? How did it come to be that we, in America, need to go to reporting sources overseas to get a more accurate picture, or any real picture, for that matter, of what is happening in our own country?
But Brzezinski’s act on air does give me some hope. When a national news reporter snaps on live television, possibly jeopardizing her career, because she’s being made to report a story that is not news once too often, we might be getting somewhere. It’s even more heartening that thousands, if not a few million, cheered by flooding the network with emails and posting commentary praising her on the Internet.
Let’s just hope that the network folks begin to listen. However, with comments during the incident from Brzezinski’s male colleagues such as, “Why are you such a journalist?” and calling her a “wench,” unfortunately, I have little hope that I will be enjoying—or trusting—what is being reported on national network news anytime soon.
To see Brzezinski’s refusal to lead the morning news with Paris Hilton’s release from jail yourself, visit www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VdNcCcweL0.
So incensed by the story and her producer’s (and teleprompter’s) refusal to budge on running Hilton as the lead story was Brzezinski, that she first attempted to set the script on fire, then tore and shredded the papers—all on live television.
Her explanation for the deed? “I just don’t believe in covering that story, especially not as the lead story in a newscast when you have a day like today.”
Brzezinski deserves a big round of applause, and she’s been getting it.
That the news is not the news, particularly on the national level, is, well, unfortunately, not news anymore. But it’s really good to see that someone finally said something, even if it’s because they snapped. It proves some folks in national media actually still care.
This story didn’t get a lot of mainstream coverage, and the explanation on the show “Morning Joe,” was fairly short—the incident was only brought back up after it was clear, from the thousands upon thousands of emails cheering Brzezinski’s act.
The incident also quickly made its way to YouTube, where it was popular and well-viewed, generating even more support for Brzezinski.
That the news on TV is not news, but “infotainment,” as I mentioned earlier, is nothing all that new. Television newscaster Edward Murrow prophetically warned of this problem more than 50 years ago, and we’ve been moving at an ever-increasing pace towards nearly no “hard” news. In fact, the problem is so bad I’m personally often reminded of scenes from Ray Bradbury’s “Farhenheit 451” when I watch network news.
Constantly, when the powers that be deign to answer the question “Why is there no more ‘serious’ news?” we get the answer, “Because that doesn’t sell. ‘Infotainment’ does. It is what the public wants.”
This is complete and utter bunk. If nothing else, the droves of emails and intelligently written commentaries on the incident one will find on the Web belie this idea. And, I can personally vouch, as I cover community news, my readers tell me they want more, not less, ‘hard’ news complete with all the details we can muster.
The fact is, while the public is sometimes guilty of working from the lowest common denominator, big money media is far more guilty of force feeding this excrement to the public. Many, if not most, people turn on television news, hoping to glean some nuggets of real information of what is going on in the world. They dodge the bullets of “non-news” such as the latest highway car crash and stories of questionable merit, such as the Paris Hilton soap opera, looking in vain for some real news of what is going on in Washington D.C., Iraq, Afghanistan, or even just the world and nation in general.
From what I hear regularly, they are usually disappointed.
Given that the owners of big media also have many other corporate interests (such as petroleum, international industry, and even just mundane things such as big box retail) who might be affected by news coverage either in the form of incoming advertising dollars, or by the possibility that a story might just tarnish the image of a owner’s other interest and negatively impact their overall bottom line, the corporate masters of big media really have no interest in informing the public. It is much more convenient, and perhaps monetarily profitable, to distract, shock and entertain the public with drivel than to tell the actual news of the day on what is supposedly news programming.
For myself, having “killed my television” some years ago (I do literally own two, but I don’t subscribe to a cable or satellite service.), most of my national and international news comes from radio or the Internet. And, I find, if I really want to know what’s going on, both here and abroad, tuning into news reported from other countries, such as the BBC, is a lot more efficient than trying to decipher what’s really happening from a couple of sound bites squished in between “non-news,” “infotainment,” and commercials.
A few friends have mentioned to me that they do the same thing—if they really want to know what’s going on, they turn to independent or overseas sources.
It struck me the other day how sad this situation is. Not so many years ago, the U.S. was a recognized source around the world for free information. During the Cold War, there were U.S. efforts to broadcast uncensored news to Communist block states and other totalitarian areas around the world. What happened? How did it come to be that we, in America, need to go to reporting sources overseas to get a more accurate picture, or any real picture, for that matter, of what is happening in our own country?
But Brzezinski’s act on air does give me some hope. When a national news reporter snaps on live television, possibly jeopardizing her career, because she’s being made to report a story that is not news once too often, we might be getting somewhere. It’s even more heartening that thousands, if not a few million, cheered by flooding the network with emails and posting commentary praising her on the Internet.
Let’s just hope that the network folks begin to listen. However, with comments during the incident from Brzezinski’s male colleagues such as, “Why are you such a journalist?” and calling her a “wench,” unfortunately, I have little hope that I will be enjoying—or trusting—what is being reported on national network news anytime soon.
To see Brzezinski’s refusal to lead the morning news with Paris Hilton’s release from jail yourself, visit www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VdNcCcweL0.
Is the art of polite debate truly lost in this country?
I recently received an email from a friend with the subject heading, “So how mad are you at me really????” The thing that really surprised me about this email was that I wasn’t angry with her at all, and it never occurred to me to be mad at her. I wasn’t even annoyed with her. I didn’t even know we had an issue.
Luckily, it turned out in the end that there wasn’t any issue at all. The email was based on an assumption, and the friend is a polite person who wanted to avoid a potential conflict. Both of us serve as board members for a local organization, and we had differing opinions on whether the organization should give a small bit of money to support an upcoming event. It doesn’t matter who was for or against what in this case—we disagreed on the issue. But what still mystified me about this email is why my friend would think this would be an issue to possibly put a rift in our relationship. She wasn’t even at the meeting (being unable to attend, she sent a statement that contained her thoughts on the matter), and we never spoke about the matter, let alone argued about it.
While I very much appreciate the email and the offer of letting me yell at her, and the fact that she didn’t have the urge (or at least didn’t tell me she had the urge) to yell at me, there just didn’t seem to be a cause for conflict at all. In any case, I never even saw the potential. It never occurred to me this could become a yelling issue at all.
In dealing with an ongoing family emergency, I’ve spent a bunch of time in medical waiting rooms recently. I cancelled my cable subscription a little more than three years ago, so I don’t see much TV, but having been subjected to the “second-hand smoke” of TV blather in these waiting rooms, I’ve begun to notice a trend.
It started one day when I was forced to watch (or at least listen to)“The View.” About a month and a half ago, there was a show in which the panel supposedly attempted to debate some of the issues surrounding the war in Iraq. The reason I say “supposedly” is because it was clear to me that the show was heavily scripted, even though this was supposed to be an impromptu debate on the issues.
The issue was brought up by one of the middle-aged panelists, and heavily “debated” by the younger panelists, who ended up practically screaming at each other. Every so often, the matriarchal type in the bunch would attempt to calm things down in an ‘intellectual” grandmotherly fashion, which basically came across as, “There, there children, don’t bicker. Play nicely.” By the time the segment was over, the panelists verbally came to the conclusion that the issue was “too emotionally charged to possibly debate civilly and intelligently.” Oh, and one young panelist brightly proclaimed that the entire panel was at a disadvantage, since they were all women and had a tendency to get more emotional than men about these issues anyhow.
Also, since the decisions are out of our hands, we shouldn’t get too worked up about it.
The next segment in the show was about how to properly choose colors for your living room, if I remember correctly.
If it weren’t offensive enough that the fruits of decades of fighting for gender equality was being eviscerated on a show that supposedly depicts modern, liberated women, the idea that an issue facing this country—the country that first proclaimed that government should be by and for the people—is too emotional for the common people to intelligently think about and debate is even more offensive.
But the more I was disgusted by what I saw, the more I thought about it. When was the last time you saw a good example of intelligent debate?
You certainly won’t find it come election season. A “debate” on national television these days seems nothing more than a carefully written speech written by professional speech-writers designed to be its best when sound-bitten. Carefully gathered supporters comprise the live audiences, in most cases, to provide live applause for their guy on cue.
Gone seem to be the days when intelligent people gathered to discuss the issues of the day. Believe it or not, once upon a time (before television, of course), people used to gather for political debates, as well as other forms of debate. They even considered it entertaining.
But today, it seems, if two or more parties don’t see exactly eye-to-eye, that’s a conflict, and debate is unlikely. Mediation, perhaps, if the matter is big enough to become a legal issue, is possible, but talking without agreeing is apparently now taboo.
I have to wonder if this is political correctness gone too far.
Will it come to the point where anyone who says anything that offends anyone, anywhere, or has the potential to, will be considered horribly gauche? And who is to say what is offensive?
The fact is, that in the case of any disagreement or potential disagreement, communication is essential to resolution. And if we find ourselves getting so touchy that we can’t talk about issues, they WILL become actual conflicts.
I definitely appreciate that email. My friend was actually more astute than I to see the potential for conflict in today’s climate.
But I find myself wishing it weren’t like that and thinking that while humans have always been irrational, touchy creatures, in some ways, we may have been a bit more politically correct when people could still debate, occasionally disagree, be accepted for who they are and not worry about having to apologize for their beliefs—and then go out for coffee or a beer afterwards, without having to make sure their friends are still their friends.
Luckily, it turned out in the end that there wasn’t any issue at all. The email was based on an assumption, and the friend is a polite person who wanted to avoid a potential conflict. Both of us serve as board members for a local organization, and we had differing opinions on whether the organization should give a small bit of money to support an upcoming event. It doesn’t matter who was for or against what in this case—we disagreed on the issue. But what still mystified me about this email is why my friend would think this would be an issue to possibly put a rift in our relationship. She wasn’t even at the meeting (being unable to attend, she sent a statement that contained her thoughts on the matter), and we never spoke about the matter, let alone argued about it.
While I very much appreciate the email and the offer of letting me yell at her, and the fact that she didn’t have the urge (or at least didn’t tell me she had the urge) to yell at me, there just didn’t seem to be a cause for conflict at all. In any case, I never even saw the potential. It never occurred to me this could become a yelling issue at all.
In dealing with an ongoing family emergency, I’ve spent a bunch of time in medical waiting rooms recently. I cancelled my cable subscription a little more than three years ago, so I don’t see much TV, but having been subjected to the “second-hand smoke” of TV blather in these waiting rooms, I’ve begun to notice a trend.
It started one day when I was forced to watch (or at least listen to)“The View.” About a month and a half ago, there was a show in which the panel supposedly attempted to debate some of the issues surrounding the war in Iraq. The reason I say “supposedly” is because it was clear to me that the show was heavily scripted, even though this was supposed to be an impromptu debate on the issues.
The issue was brought up by one of the middle-aged panelists, and heavily “debated” by the younger panelists, who ended up practically screaming at each other. Every so often, the matriarchal type in the bunch would attempt to calm things down in an ‘intellectual” grandmotherly fashion, which basically came across as, “There, there children, don’t bicker. Play nicely.” By the time the segment was over, the panelists verbally came to the conclusion that the issue was “too emotionally charged to possibly debate civilly and intelligently.” Oh, and one young panelist brightly proclaimed that the entire panel was at a disadvantage, since they were all women and had a tendency to get more emotional than men about these issues anyhow.
Also, since the decisions are out of our hands, we shouldn’t get too worked up about it.
The next segment in the show was about how to properly choose colors for your living room, if I remember correctly.
If it weren’t offensive enough that the fruits of decades of fighting for gender equality was being eviscerated on a show that supposedly depicts modern, liberated women, the idea that an issue facing this country—the country that first proclaimed that government should be by and for the people—is too emotional for the common people to intelligently think about and debate is even more offensive.
But the more I was disgusted by what I saw, the more I thought about it. When was the last time you saw a good example of intelligent debate?
You certainly won’t find it come election season. A “debate” on national television these days seems nothing more than a carefully written speech written by professional speech-writers designed to be its best when sound-bitten. Carefully gathered supporters comprise the live audiences, in most cases, to provide live applause for their guy on cue.
Gone seem to be the days when intelligent people gathered to discuss the issues of the day. Believe it or not, once upon a time (before television, of course), people used to gather for political debates, as well as other forms of debate. They even considered it entertaining.
But today, it seems, if two or more parties don’t see exactly eye-to-eye, that’s a conflict, and debate is unlikely. Mediation, perhaps, if the matter is big enough to become a legal issue, is possible, but talking without agreeing is apparently now taboo.
I have to wonder if this is political correctness gone too far.
Will it come to the point where anyone who says anything that offends anyone, anywhere, or has the potential to, will be considered horribly gauche? And who is to say what is offensive?
The fact is, that in the case of any disagreement or potential disagreement, communication is essential to resolution. And if we find ourselves getting so touchy that we can’t talk about issues, they WILL become actual conflicts.
I definitely appreciate that email. My friend was actually more astute than I to see the potential for conflict in today’s climate.
But I find myself wishing it weren’t like that and thinking that while humans have always been irrational, touchy creatures, in some ways, we may have been a bit more politically correct when people could still debate, occasionally disagree, be accepted for who they are and not worry about having to apologize for their beliefs—and then go out for coffee or a beer afterwards, without having to make sure their friends are still their friends.
We are all Easton’s heritage
I recently received a press release that cited the usual deplorable statistics about how little Americans really know about their country. Being that this is the season of all things patriotic, just having passed Independence Day, this is not all that surprising.
According to the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, only 48 percent of college seniors surveyed correctly identified the Declaration of Independence as the source of the phrase, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” The release goes on to state that 42 percent of those surveyed thought the source of the phrase was from the preamble of the Constitution. And, that more than 400 students (it does not reveal how many were actually surveyed) apparently identified the phrase’s source as Marx and Engels’ The Communist Manifesto.
So, apparently, if one adds up the numbers, only 90 percent of those surveyed (supposedly America’s best and brightest—they’re college students, right?) correctly identified the phrase as belonging to one of the United States’ key documents, and only slightly more than half of those knew which of those documents it belongs too.
These are sobering thoughts, surely, but this is not a column about the ills of American society. There are plenty of those already, and I’m fairly certain that on the day I decide to return to that topic, there will still be plenty to discuss.
I’m not certain how many of the hundreds who attended Easton’s Heritage Day reading of the Declaration of Independence really knew it well before they arrived. I suspect, from what I observed during the reading, that quite a few not only respect that document but do actually understand and know its contents.
But I’m sure it was far from everyone. If you surveyed the crowd before the event, I’m not sure how well they’d have fared.
Would the results be so different from the ISI’s findings? Probably not, though I think few Eastonians would say “that all men are created equal” originated in Communist Russia.
But whether they can recite the words or not, I know America, the REAL America, is alive and well in Easton.
How do I know this? I saw it myself.
When reenactor Adam Howard got to the parts about tyrants and taxes, the crowd booed both. Unabashedly. Unashamedly.
And not just in fun, due to the spirit of the moment either. It was for real.
The last couple of years, political protesters have quietly and peacefully voiced their opinions with large signs during the event. They too, as far as I am concerned, are a symptom that the democratic principles this nation was founded on are also alive and well in Easton.
When freedom and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were mentioned, the crowd cheered its approval.
In what now seems like another lifetime, I used to be a reenactor. In fact, I participated in Heritage Day numerous times, in period garb, for half a decade before I moved to Easton. Having been a member of “the hobby” (reenacting) for almost two decades, I’ve seen the Declaration read a countless number of times, both in Easton and elsewhere.
I’ve seen it done well, as well as poorly. (For the record, I’ve enjoyed Howard’s interpretation on all the occasions I’ve seen him.) But the one thing that is unique in Easton is the crowd.
In most places, at most events, though polite, the crowd looks bored. One finds oneself often wondering why they attended.
Perhaps it was supposed to be educational for their children, who upon taking the parental cue, also look bored. Some people inevitably drift off, either mentally, or even physically wander away before the presentation is through.
But Easton is different.
This past Sunday, I saw children watching attentively, nodding, and actually understanding the real meaning and importance of the Declaration of Independence as it was brought to life before them. I watched adults, also rapt in attention, as their faces showed the new meaning the reading gave their country’s founding document, and in some cases, also understanding its true import for the first time.
Perhaps it is that it actually happened here, in Easton, that there is some remnant trace of memory, much more so than is passed down to us in the dusty, tired old history books that most of us have come to equate with the boredom of a banal, required high school history classes, that makes the Declaration’s reading so much more meaningful here that elsewhere.
But I think it is something else too.
A few years ago, the Heritage Day Committee chose for its t-shirt slogan the phrase, “You are Easton’s heritage.”
It is my favorite slogan for Heritage Day, and my favorite t-shirt too. (I even bought a backup one this year, just in case.) The reason I like it is that it is so true.
A place is only as good as its people, and it is the people that make the history of a place. People and their achievements, both large and small, are what put a town on the map. Even if a place is renowned for something else, say its architecture, someone had to put it there. Hence, it is the people that are the impetus that make a place great or important.
Before and during the Revolutionary War, and for a long time after that, a century and a half, in fact, Easton was a place of importance and a center of commerce. Easton’s history of success is much longer than its current history of urban dilemmas.
But dilemmas we do have, and solve them we must.
Looking around on Sunday, I saw a few hundred Eastonians, all of who play their roles in what is Easton’s heritage to come, whether they realize it or not. But seeing the reaction and attentiveness at that reading, I’m not too worried about the future of Easton, not as long as we continue to boo tyrants and unfair taxes.
We, all of us, are Easton’s heritage, and Easton’s future. Let’s make sure we never forget it.
According to the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, only 48 percent of college seniors surveyed correctly identified the Declaration of Independence as the source of the phrase, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” The release goes on to state that 42 percent of those surveyed thought the source of the phrase was from the preamble of the Constitution. And, that more than 400 students (it does not reveal how many were actually surveyed) apparently identified the phrase’s source as Marx and Engels’ The Communist Manifesto.
So, apparently, if one adds up the numbers, only 90 percent of those surveyed (supposedly America’s best and brightest—they’re college students, right?) correctly identified the phrase as belonging to one of the United States’ key documents, and only slightly more than half of those knew which of those documents it belongs too.
These are sobering thoughts, surely, but this is not a column about the ills of American society. There are plenty of those already, and I’m fairly certain that on the day I decide to return to that topic, there will still be plenty to discuss.
I’m not certain how many of the hundreds who attended Easton’s Heritage Day reading of the Declaration of Independence really knew it well before they arrived. I suspect, from what I observed during the reading, that quite a few not only respect that document but do actually understand and know its contents.
But I’m sure it was far from everyone. If you surveyed the crowd before the event, I’m not sure how well they’d have fared.
Would the results be so different from the ISI’s findings? Probably not, though I think few Eastonians would say “that all men are created equal” originated in Communist Russia.
But whether they can recite the words or not, I know America, the REAL America, is alive and well in Easton.
How do I know this? I saw it myself.
When reenactor Adam Howard got to the parts about tyrants and taxes, the crowd booed both. Unabashedly. Unashamedly.
And not just in fun, due to the spirit of the moment either. It was for real.
The last couple of years, political protesters have quietly and peacefully voiced their opinions with large signs during the event. They too, as far as I am concerned, are a symptom that the democratic principles this nation was founded on are also alive and well in Easton.
When freedom and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were mentioned, the crowd cheered its approval.
In what now seems like another lifetime, I used to be a reenactor. In fact, I participated in Heritage Day numerous times, in period garb, for half a decade before I moved to Easton. Having been a member of “the hobby” (reenacting) for almost two decades, I’ve seen the Declaration read a countless number of times, both in Easton and elsewhere.
I’ve seen it done well, as well as poorly. (For the record, I’ve enjoyed Howard’s interpretation on all the occasions I’ve seen him.) But the one thing that is unique in Easton is the crowd.
In most places, at most events, though polite, the crowd looks bored. One finds oneself often wondering why they attended.
Perhaps it was supposed to be educational for their children, who upon taking the parental cue, also look bored. Some people inevitably drift off, either mentally, or even physically wander away before the presentation is through.
But Easton is different.
This past Sunday, I saw children watching attentively, nodding, and actually understanding the real meaning and importance of the Declaration of Independence as it was brought to life before them. I watched adults, also rapt in attention, as their faces showed the new meaning the reading gave their country’s founding document, and in some cases, also understanding its true import for the first time.
Perhaps it is that it actually happened here, in Easton, that there is some remnant trace of memory, much more so than is passed down to us in the dusty, tired old history books that most of us have come to equate with the boredom of a banal, required high school history classes, that makes the Declaration’s reading so much more meaningful here that elsewhere.
But I think it is something else too.
A few years ago, the Heritage Day Committee chose for its t-shirt slogan the phrase, “You are Easton’s heritage.”
It is my favorite slogan for Heritage Day, and my favorite t-shirt too. (I even bought a backup one this year, just in case.) The reason I like it is that it is so true.
A place is only as good as its people, and it is the people that make the history of a place. People and their achievements, both large and small, are what put a town on the map. Even if a place is renowned for something else, say its architecture, someone had to put it there. Hence, it is the people that are the impetus that make a place great or important.
Before and during the Revolutionary War, and for a long time after that, a century and a half, in fact, Easton was a place of importance and a center of commerce. Easton’s history of success is much longer than its current history of urban dilemmas.
But dilemmas we do have, and solve them we must.
Looking around on Sunday, I saw a few hundred Eastonians, all of who play their roles in what is Easton’s heritage to come, whether they realize it or not. But seeing the reaction and attentiveness at that reading, I’m not too worried about the future of Easton, not as long as we continue to boo tyrants and unfair taxes.
We, all of us, are Easton’s heritage, and Easton’s future. Let’s make sure we never forget it.
American ideal is still very real
This past week, as Americans celebrated Independence Day, and as Easton prepares to celebrate its own unique part in the birth of the United States through Heritage Day, I got to thinking a bit about what its all about.
No, this will not be yet another tedious yet politically correct column spewing patriotic platitudes here, though I love my country well. (I’ll even skip the jokes about fearing my government, at least for now.) But based on the current world situation, and perception of the U.S. and Americans around the world right now, I did get to thinking about the dichotomy between what the U.S. actually is and what average Americans perceive to be “American values.”
When it comes to Independence Day, and the birth of this nation in general, I consider myself to be somewhat more knowledgeable than the average person, since I have been involved in the reenactment of various events pertaining to the Revolutionary War for almost two decades now. My current editorship of The Easton News has curtailed my participation to near nothing in the past year and a half, but if you look closely at Heritage Day photos from the past ten years, you may just find my antique alter ego peering back at you, holding either a distaff or a linstock, demonstrating two very different aspects of colonial life in the local area.
But it doesn’t take any special study or historical expertise to realize that the America we live in today does not really resemble the America our forefathers lived in, or even exactly what they envisioned.
One can debate where or whether things have gone wrong in the intervening 200-plus years since the Declaration of Independence was written followed more than a decade later by the adoption of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the three cornerstone documents that comprise the basis of the idea of the American way.
It’s plain to see that we, as a nation, have not always lived up to the ideals and laws we set for ourselves. It is immensely arguable that our government, particularly in its current incarnation, has been degraded from these ideals, to the detriment of both our economy and our reputation in the world.
But there can be an immense difference between a government and its people, as another lesson of history has told us time and again. Indeed, I believe there is an ever-growing gap between what the American people perceive to be the right course of action in a given situation and what seems to be happening in our government—perhaps as great as the gap that is growing between rich and poor in this country.
All is not lost, however. Though it would seem hopeless, consider that this country was founded on an outrageous idea, one that no one 200 hundred years ago thought could ever last. But last it has, and even thrived.
Recent scientific evidence confirms that information, the very stuff ideas are made of, does indeed have a physical component, though it is not completely understood entirely. That means that ideas are real, in a very physical sense.
It has always interested me that the first thing tyrants attack is ideas. One would think that once physical dominance is achieved, dictator types would feel secure, that ideas wouldn’t matter, only might.
But I think that those tyrants may have been ahead of contemporary science. They know that once an idea takes hold, it is very, very real in a physical sense.
That thought is comforting to me. See, even if our government has seemingly been usurped by folks that seem more likely to use the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and Bill of Rights as toilet paper than to actually read the documents they’ve sworn to preserve, those ideals are embedded in the hearts and minds of nearly every American citizen.
See, if the idea of what the U.S. is and can be is intrinsically real, then the reality that idea represents is not so far away after all.
In other words, government by the people and for the people is the logical sum of the equation, not a privilege that is bestowed by some lofty power. Each and every one of us knows what America is really supposed to be about, even if those in the Oval Office seem clueless.
And that means that no matter what happens, our country’s best ideals will survive, no matter what happens. We just have to make sure that we, as a nation, live up to them.
No, this will not be yet another tedious yet politically correct column spewing patriotic platitudes here, though I love my country well. (I’ll even skip the jokes about fearing my government, at least for now.) But based on the current world situation, and perception of the U.S. and Americans around the world right now, I did get to thinking about the dichotomy between what the U.S. actually is and what average Americans perceive to be “American values.”
When it comes to Independence Day, and the birth of this nation in general, I consider myself to be somewhat more knowledgeable than the average person, since I have been involved in the reenactment of various events pertaining to the Revolutionary War for almost two decades now. My current editorship of The Easton News has curtailed my participation to near nothing in the past year and a half, but if you look closely at Heritage Day photos from the past ten years, you may just find my antique alter ego peering back at you, holding either a distaff or a linstock, demonstrating two very different aspects of colonial life in the local area.
But it doesn’t take any special study or historical expertise to realize that the America we live in today does not really resemble the America our forefathers lived in, or even exactly what they envisioned.
One can debate where or whether things have gone wrong in the intervening 200-plus years since the Declaration of Independence was written followed more than a decade later by the adoption of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the three cornerstone documents that comprise the basis of the idea of the American way.
It’s plain to see that we, as a nation, have not always lived up to the ideals and laws we set for ourselves. It is immensely arguable that our government, particularly in its current incarnation, has been degraded from these ideals, to the detriment of both our economy and our reputation in the world.
But there can be an immense difference between a government and its people, as another lesson of history has told us time and again. Indeed, I believe there is an ever-growing gap between what the American people perceive to be the right course of action in a given situation and what seems to be happening in our government—perhaps as great as the gap that is growing between rich and poor in this country.
All is not lost, however. Though it would seem hopeless, consider that this country was founded on an outrageous idea, one that no one 200 hundred years ago thought could ever last. But last it has, and even thrived.
Recent scientific evidence confirms that information, the very stuff ideas are made of, does indeed have a physical component, though it is not completely understood entirely. That means that ideas are real, in a very physical sense.
It has always interested me that the first thing tyrants attack is ideas. One would think that once physical dominance is achieved, dictator types would feel secure, that ideas wouldn’t matter, only might.
But I think that those tyrants may have been ahead of contemporary science. They know that once an idea takes hold, it is very, very real in a physical sense.
That thought is comforting to me. See, even if our government has seemingly been usurped by folks that seem more likely to use the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and Bill of Rights as toilet paper than to actually read the documents they’ve sworn to preserve, those ideals are embedded in the hearts and minds of nearly every American citizen.
See, if the idea of what the U.S. is and can be is intrinsically real, then the reality that idea represents is not so far away after all.
In other words, government by the people and for the people is the logical sum of the equation, not a privilege that is bestowed by some lofty power. Each and every one of us knows what America is really supposed to be about, even if those in the Oval Office seem clueless.
And that means that no matter what happens, our country’s best ideals will survive, no matter what happens. We just have to make sure that we, as a nation, live up to them.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Laptop offers technology’s magic only dreamed of in yesteryears
Let me start by saying I am a Luddite at heart. I like my life simple and quiet, though it never really seems to work out that way.
Years ago, I avoided getting a computer for as long as possible, bowing to the dictates of modern convention only when it became apparent that my friends and neighbors would no longer respond to me just shouting over the fence, or leaving voice mail messages. I’m not technophobic; in fact, it’s quite the opposite. But I really, really didn’t want to be bothered with one more thing in my life that would need attention.
This, however, happened back in what is now the “dark ages,” when voice mail was still called leaving a message on someone’s answering machine. (Remember those quaint devices? You bought it once and never paid for the service again until the machine broke, unlike today where for about $7 a month anyone with an access code, and probably Big Brother too, can listen to your messages any time they want, which are no doubt archived for the government’s convenience as well. But I forgot, the concept of real privacy has also become quaint these days.)
So, what is now more than a decade ago, I broke down and bought a computer.
And it really wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be. The Internet, with all the instant access to information it offers, really did make up for the fact that I was beholden to yet another electronic device.
But as I said, I’m a bit of a Luddite, and I really don’t subscribe to the idea that a device that costs hundreds of dollars should become obsolete trash in just a year or two. So I was determined to make that computer last. This was what is now about 13 years ago.
And last it did, until a little over a month ago, when with no more than a whine followed by an ominous clacking noise, it likely breathed its last. No, it was not exactly the same old beast for the entire 13 years--by now it’s a bit more like Frankenstein, since the beast has three hard drives totaling a whole of 12 gigabytes of computing power. But that said, reviving this particular beast, other than to retrieve 12-plus years of personal research, would rightly be considered some form of electronic cruelty, I think. (Though whether it would be more cruel to the beast or to me is not entirely clear.)
I know there’s a whole bunch of computer nerds out there reading this thinking, “Wow, what a relic...” I know they’re laughing. But I’d also bet the vast majority of them are under 30.
Perhaps it is a product of growing up in a world where nothing seems to stay the same for more than about 15 seconds, but once I find a good tool, I want to master it and use it comfortably. I don’t see carpenters buying really expensive newly designed hammers every fifteen minutes, and I just don’t see why I should have to buy myself a “new hammer” that often either.
That said, not having a “hammer” at all is a problem. For the last bunch of weeks, everything for the newspaper has had to be written in my office out on the far side of the airport, meaning I’ve more or less been chained to my desk in between trips to my mom’s house in New Jersey. It hasn’t been fun.
This weekend I decided to put an end to the slavery to my office computer. I’d been thinking about getting a laptop computer for a while now, but I’d also been putting it off. The problem with refusing to buy a new hammer is that one loses track of what new hammers do and how they do it. So I’d been doing a little research, but I wasn’t sure I was ready to take the plunge.
But standing on the edge of that diving board, with the prod of being chained to my desk every “spare” second for even another minute, let alone another week, was great incentive.
So I headed to the Allentown fairgrounds this past weekend for one of those computer shows they hold.
It was smaller than I expected, which is a good thing, because I also misjudged what time the show closed by an hour. In the end, I had just enough time to review the goods and sellers reasonably thoroughly. Five hundred dollars later, I’ve got a laptop “hammer” that is about eight times as powerful as my old beast, is portable, reads and writes DVDs in addition to CDs and has high-speed wireless Internet capability built in—and it runs on a battery for two hours or more before it needs recharging.
None of this technology is really new any more. And again, I’m sure the under-30 crowd is laughing.
But as I write this column on my new laptop, it strikes me how many times as a kid, reading sci-fi or watching Star Trek, this technology was mentioned and we dreamed of it becoming a reality.
Cell phones are the same way. Less than half a life time ago, people talked about how cool it would be to have a “communicator” from Star Trek. Little kids “played Star Trek” and emulated other sci-fi stories the way they played cowboys and Indians in past decades.
I very specifically remember reading the book version of “The Wrath of Kahn” the summer it came out when I was a kid. The crew is on a short transport out to the Enterprise, and there’s a description of Uhura doing some programming on a portable mini computer—in other words, a laptop. At the time, I thought that was the coolest thing, at least as cool as communicators.
I wanted one.
I don’t think many of us expected to actually own these devices in our lifetimes. They were the toys of the future, of a place and time that didn’t exist, the stuff of sci-fi fantasy, in a world where telephones were still dialed manually, and one got out of one’s chair to change the channel on the television. But today, they are reality.
We don’t always realize how technology has given us things that just a decade or two or three ago would have practically been considered magic. And certainly technology has presented as many problems as it solves—it is not the magic panacea it was often made out to be. But as I write this on my new laptop, it does strike me—whatever magic we can conceive of may indeed come to pass, if we can just wait long enough.
Years ago, I avoided getting a computer for as long as possible, bowing to the dictates of modern convention only when it became apparent that my friends and neighbors would no longer respond to me just shouting over the fence, or leaving voice mail messages. I’m not technophobic; in fact, it’s quite the opposite. But I really, really didn’t want to be bothered with one more thing in my life that would need attention.
This, however, happened back in what is now the “dark ages,” when voice mail was still called leaving a message on someone’s answering machine. (Remember those quaint devices? You bought it once and never paid for the service again until the machine broke, unlike today where for about $7 a month anyone with an access code, and probably Big Brother too, can listen to your messages any time they want, which are no doubt archived for the government’s convenience as well. But I forgot, the concept of real privacy has also become quaint these days.)
So, what is now more than a decade ago, I broke down and bought a computer.
And it really wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be. The Internet, with all the instant access to information it offers, really did make up for the fact that I was beholden to yet another electronic device.
But as I said, I’m a bit of a Luddite, and I really don’t subscribe to the idea that a device that costs hundreds of dollars should become obsolete trash in just a year or two. So I was determined to make that computer last. This was what is now about 13 years ago.
And last it did, until a little over a month ago, when with no more than a whine followed by an ominous clacking noise, it likely breathed its last. No, it was not exactly the same old beast for the entire 13 years--by now it’s a bit more like Frankenstein, since the beast has three hard drives totaling a whole of 12 gigabytes of computing power. But that said, reviving this particular beast, other than to retrieve 12-plus years of personal research, would rightly be considered some form of electronic cruelty, I think. (Though whether it would be more cruel to the beast or to me is not entirely clear.)
I know there’s a whole bunch of computer nerds out there reading this thinking, “Wow, what a relic...” I know they’re laughing. But I’d also bet the vast majority of them are under 30.
Perhaps it is a product of growing up in a world where nothing seems to stay the same for more than about 15 seconds, but once I find a good tool, I want to master it and use it comfortably. I don’t see carpenters buying really expensive newly designed hammers every fifteen minutes, and I just don’t see why I should have to buy myself a “new hammer” that often either.
That said, not having a “hammer” at all is a problem. For the last bunch of weeks, everything for the newspaper has had to be written in my office out on the far side of the airport, meaning I’ve more or less been chained to my desk in between trips to my mom’s house in New Jersey. It hasn’t been fun.
This weekend I decided to put an end to the slavery to my office computer. I’d been thinking about getting a laptop computer for a while now, but I’d also been putting it off. The problem with refusing to buy a new hammer is that one loses track of what new hammers do and how they do it. So I’d been doing a little research, but I wasn’t sure I was ready to take the plunge.
But standing on the edge of that diving board, with the prod of being chained to my desk every “spare” second for even another minute, let alone another week, was great incentive.
So I headed to the Allentown fairgrounds this past weekend for one of those computer shows they hold.
It was smaller than I expected, which is a good thing, because I also misjudged what time the show closed by an hour. In the end, I had just enough time to review the goods and sellers reasonably thoroughly. Five hundred dollars later, I’ve got a laptop “hammer” that is about eight times as powerful as my old beast, is portable, reads and writes DVDs in addition to CDs and has high-speed wireless Internet capability built in—and it runs on a battery for two hours or more before it needs recharging.
None of this technology is really new any more. And again, I’m sure the under-30 crowd is laughing.
But as I write this column on my new laptop, it strikes me how many times as a kid, reading sci-fi or watching Star Trek, this technology was mentioned and we dreamed of it becoming a reality.
Cell phones are the same way. Less than half a life time ago, people talked about how cool it would be to have a “communicator” from Star Trek. Little kids “played Star Trek” and emulated other sci-fi stories the way they played cowboys and Indians in past decades.
I very specifically remember reading the book version of “The Wrath of Kahn” the summer it came out when I was a kid. The crew is on a short transport out to the Enterprise, and there’s a description of Uhura doing some programming on a portable mini computer—in other words, a laptop. At the time, I thought that was the coolest thing, at least as cool as communicators.
I wanted one.
I don’t think many of us expected to actually own these devices in our lifetimes. They were the toys of the future, of a place and time that didn’t exist, the stuff of sci-fi fantasy, in a world where telephones were still dialed manually, and one got out of one’s chair to change the channel on the television. But today, they are reality.
We don’t always realize how technology has given us things that just a decade or two or three ago would have practically been considered magic. And certainly technology has presented as many problems as it solves—it is not the magic panacea it was often made out to be. But as I write this on my new laptop, it does strike me—whatever magic we can conceive of may indeed come to pass, if we can just wait long enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
